The second problem: why not give rice + vitamins separately? There is a logical flaw in the need for bundlng except the commercial story for Monsanto. see http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf Read more

From the onset: I am instinctively (not rationally, nor ideologically) cautious if not outright opposed when talking about GMOs, however I am open to consider arguments like those in prof. Singer's article. At the same time I am a "follower" of Mr. Nassim N. Taleb's theories and analysis. After reading "The Precautionary Principle" I have the following question that may point to a fallacy in the argument: Mr. Taleb et al. argue that "nature has thin tails, even if tails are thick at a microlevel", and than goes on to argue that the use of GMOs introduce thick tails. My questions are: 1. are not we, humans, along with our brains and our capacity of modifying genetics, a product of that same "nature"? 2. If yes, is the risk we introduce already "computed" in the nature's thin tails (albeit thick at microlevel)? And if the answer at the first question is "no" (and somehow it so seems in the PP article, since nature and human induced risks are treated separately), than what are we? - I guess the answer to this question would allow to move further with the argument that separates human from nature's design. It seems to me - and I would like to know if my perception is wrong - that "The Precautionary Principle" changes scale in order to move form thin to thick and back. Read more

My concern with GMOs is explained by analogy to amateur programming. Changing DNA is like rewriting code in an operating system. The authors themselves unwittingly build bugs into code. These are folks that conceived and executed the program. Even for them the interaction of the many operations is impossible to predict and control.

Modern genetic scientists are rogue amateurs in comparison. They dont even know what the program does and how it functions. All they know is that when you push button A thing B happens. They change one line of code and the whole operating system of the planet can go haywire.

No amount of patronizing shoulder-patting even from the likes of Peter Singer would make me ok with messing with the ecological operating system, since no one knows whether there is a risk that many more people will die than be saved. We just dont know well enough what we are doing yet. Read more

Opposition to GM foods makes no kind of sense on a number of levels. Firstly, we have been genetically modifying plants and animals since the dawn of farming. Secondly, GM foods lead to greater yields (or in the case of Golden Rice, better nutrition) and thus reduce pressure on land use, as opposed to so-called “organic” foods. Thirdly, there is no significant evidence that “organic” foods have better nutrition than GM foods. Instead of avoiding confrontation with anti-GM sentiment in lobby groups and “organic” industry, pro-active government policy would protect and enforce a minimum level of GM innovation in crops and livestock. Read more

I gather that wild carrots, which are much paler than the ones we eat today, had less vitamin A (carotene). A carrot is a root; carotene is a photosynthetic pigment, and there is little sense for it to be abundant in roots, just like there is little sense in it being abundant in seeds such as rice. Carrots were probably genetically engineered over the centuries by humans to have more vitamin A, and that's a good thing. What's wrong with doing the same to rice? It's just with faster and better techniques.There clearly are issues with GMOs being patented. There are issues with patents generally. There were already big patent issues with F1 hybrid seeds, long before modern genetic modification came along. We didn't make such noise about that then. (We probably should have.)It's clear that the heated opposition to GMOs has a lot to do with the idea that nature is sacred. I think we should get over that.I hope the day will come when we have open-source GMOs produced in the home laboratories of geeks all over the world. For the benefit of all. Read more

there is a clear 'wrong' in patenting life.. that triggers from many sources:1) IDEOLOGY: religious beleives can be against that2) PRACTICALLY: being dependent on buying seeds. 3) PRACTICALLY: these patented genes spread all over: you use them without knowing it and are liable of fines to big corporations. Especially if they are more resistant, then naturally, by cross polination, everyone will use the patented genes and will have to use it4) JUSTICE: risks are public: once a genes is out of the box, no one can stop it. But the profit a private. (for example, creating super-bacterias resistant to antibiotics)5) The case to patent crops that already exist (such as the indian rice case) and charging everyone afterwards?6) It impedes research: genes are a piece of genetic code, or a "basic material" for further construction, or for further scientific research (including to prove wether or not they cause damage or not !).

Given all these features, I think only publicly owned and publicly assessed genes can be be publically released for everyone to use for free - or maybe pay a higher price of the unintended consequences. Only then can "WE consider the merits of each genetically modified plant on a case-by-case basis".Under the current system, with billions of dollars at stake, can we really trust the companies that produce the seeds? The scientists who made the security check? The politicians at FDA who allow it? Do "WE" consider the merit on a casa by case? I don't think so, do you? But, as with the big banks or nuclear facilities, everyone will pay the price. Read more

None of these Biotech companies are there for charity and they tend to make a lot of money selling GM Crops. The sad part is that the places where the GM crops would leave a positive impact, especially the lesser developed countries is where they are inaccessible to the farmers due to high acquisition costs and permanent dependency on the Biotech companies for the seeds. Read more

PS On Air: The Super Germ Threat

NOV 2, 2016

In the latest edition of PS On
Air
, Jim O’Neill discusses how to beat antimicrobial resistance, which
threatens millions of lives, with Gavekal Dragonomics’ Anatole Kaletsky
and Leonardo Maisano of
Il Sole 24 Ore.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Sign up to receive newsletters about what's being discussed on Project Syndicate.

EmailReceive our Sunday newsletterA weekly collection of our most discussed columnsReceive our PS On Point newsletterStay informed of the world's leading opinions on global issues

Why not register an account with us, too? You'll be able to follow individual authors (to receive notifications whenever they publish new articles) and subscribe to more specific, topic-based newsletters.

Project Syndicate provides readers with original, engaging, and thought-provoking commentaries by global leaders and thinkers. By offering incisive perspectives from those who are shaping the world’s economics, politics, science, and culture, Project Syndicate has created an unrivaled global venue for informed public debate.